Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance

fighting for imperiled wildlife

2026 conservation guide

GLWA 2026 Conservation Congress Voting Guide
Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance  ·  speakforwildlife.org

2026 Wisconsin Conservation Congress
Spring Hearing Voting Guide

April 13, 2026  ·  In-person county hearings & online April 13–15  ·  GLWA recommended positions
Yes Support
No Oppose
— No Position / Neutral
These are GLWA’s recommended positions based on our mission to protect Wisconsin’s wildlife and wild places. This is not a hunting or fishing guide — we vote on all questions as advocates for wildlife, ecological integrity, and the public trust. Questions are heard April 13 in-person and online April 13–15 at the DNR Spring Hearing portal.
2026 Wildlife Management Advisory Questions
1
Remove once-in-a-lifetime restriction for antlerless elk
No More hunting opportunity for elk is not a conservation goal. Wisconsin’s elk herd is still rebuilding; expanding kill opportunity is premature.
2
Change sharp-tailed grouse permit drawing to random draw
No Sharp-tailed grouse numbers are severely depressed — 25 permits for a statewide population is telling. A random draw exists only to maximize hunter access to a struggling species. Oppose.
3
Allow overnight blinds/stands for disabled hunters south of HWY 64
— This is a narrow accommodation for hunters with disabilities with no meaningful ecological impact. GLWA takes no position.
4
Create a uniform statewide cottontail rabbit season (earlier opener)
No This is a pure hunting-opportunity expansion with no conservation rationale. The DNR itself admits it has no data supporting the change. More kill, earlier in the season. Oppose.
5
Extend bow/crossbow seasons to Jan. 31 in all Farmland Zone DMUs
No Extending archery season statewide means more killing pressure on deer in a broader window. This is a hunting lobby convenience measure, not conservation. Oppose.
6
Allow bobcat hunting at night by call
No Bobcat are a recovered but still vulnerable species. Expanding hunting to nighttime hours increases kill opportunity and makes it harder to track and monitor harvest. No ecological justification. Oppose.
7
Remove the 9:00 a.m. opener for certain hunting seasons
No The delayed opener was a wildlife protection measure — animals are more active at dawn. Removing it purely for hunter convenience expands harm at the most vulnerable time of day. Oppose.
2026 Fisheries Management Advisory Questions
8
Remove fish refuge below Red Wing Dam (Lock & Dam 3), March 1–April 29
No Fish refuges near dams protect spawning aggregations at their most vulnerable. The DNR’s rationale is enforcement convenience, not biology. Oppose removal of any spawning refuge.
9
Remove fish refuge below Alma Dam (Lock & Dam 4), March 1–April 29
No Same as Q8. Spawning refuges exist for a biological reason. Opponent.
10
Remove fish refuge below Onalaska Dam (Spillway), March 15–April 25
No Same as Q8–9. Oppose all three Mississippi River refuge removals.
11
Add catch-and-release lake sturgeon season on Yellow Lake (Oct. 1–15)
No Lake sturgeon are one of the most imperiled fish species on earth, and Wisconsin holds one of the last viable populations in the world — a population in decline due to climate change and pollution. GLWA has petitioned for their protection under the Endangered Species Act. Catch-and-release is not harmless: post-release mortality rates are significant, and sport fishing pressure is the number one driver of fish population decline in the U.S. by the agencies’ own data. Expanding any recreational fishery on lake sturgeon — even catch-and-release — is the wrong direction. No.
Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance  ·  speakforwildlife.org  ·  Donate to support our work
Spring Hearing April 13 in person / April 13–15 online · These positions are GLWA’s recommendations and do not constitute legal or regulatory advice.
GLWA 2026 Conservation Congress Voting Guide
Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance  ·  speakforwildlife.org

2026 Wisconsin Conservation Congress
Spring Hearing Voting Guide

April 13, 2026  ·  In-person county hearings & online April 13–15  ·  GLWA recommended positions
Yes Support
No Oppose
— No Position / Neutral
2026 Natural Resources Board Advisory Questions
License Fee Questions (Q12–18)
12
Increase hunting/fishing/trapping fees by 66% (full inflation adjustment)
Yes GLWA supports adequate DNR funding for wildlife management and law enforcement. Higher fees on consumptive users is appropriate. The Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson model is better than gutting enforcement. Yes — with the understanding that non-hunting conservation must also be funded.
13
Increase hunting/fishing/trapping fees by 25%
Yes Better than the status quo. A modest increase is still a meaningful step. Yes.
14
Increase hunting/fishing/trapping fees by 50%
Yes Yes. Still well below actual inflation since 2005.
15
Increase hunting/fishing/trapping fees by 75%
Yes Yes. Closer to the actual inflation gap.
16
One-time increase with bi-annual inflation adjustments (NRB/JFC approval)
Yes A structural mechanism to keep pace with inflation is better than relying on legislative action every 20 years. Yes.
17
Increase inland waters trout stamp from $10 to $16
Yes Targeted fee for consumptive users of a specific resource. Yes.
18
Will funding reductions impact your participation in wildlife/fisheries activities?
Yes Yes — reduced enforcement, habitat management, and monitoring directly impacts all Wisconsin residents who value wildlife, not just hunters and anglers.
Alternative Funding Questions (Q19–22)
19
Dedicated 1/8% sales tax for conservation (Missouri/Minnesota model)
Yes This is the most transformative funding question on the ballot. Broad-based public funding for wildlife conservation — not dependent on hunting license sales — is exactly what GLWA supports. The Missouri model works. Yes, strongly.
20
Use general tax revenue to reimburse ~$20M in free/reduced license fees
Yes The current system of subsidizing license fees through program cuts is backwards. Making the general fund cover fee subsidies frees up wildlife management dollars. Yes.
21
Access fee for all users of public lands (like a state park sticker)
Yes Non-consumptive users — hikers, wildlife watchers, photographers — currently pay nothing toward habitat management on public lands. An equitable access fee is good public trust doctrine. Yes.
22
Register non-motorized watercraft (canoes, kayaks, SUPs) with fees for conservation
Yes Paddlers use and benefit from clean waterways. A modest registration fee that funds water quality and fisheries management is reasonable. Yes.
2026 Wisconsin Conservation Congress Advisory Questions
Legislative Committee
23
0.125% dedicated sales tax for fish & wildlife conservation (permanent funding)
Yes Same as Q19 — this is the question GLWA most strongly supports. Broad-based, non-license-dependent, permanent conservation funding. Missouri has proven it works. Yes.
24
Designate Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly as state insect; redesignate honeybee as state agricultural insect
Yes The Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly is the only federally endangered dragonfly in the U.S., with its most significant population in Door County, Wisconsin. Designating it as state insect raises its profile, promotes endangered species awareness, and is ecologically appropriate. Yes.
Fur Harvest Committee
25
Change muskrat/mink season opener to 9:00 AM
No This is a trapping administrative question. GLWA opposes expanding trapping convenience with no conservation basis. No position on the administrative change itself, but the framing around youth recruitment into trapping is not something GLWA supports. No.
26
Create youth-only muskrat/mink trapping season (Saturday before regular opener)
No GLWA opposes youth recruitment into trapping programs. This is explicitly designed to onboard a new generation of trappers. Oppose.
Turkey and Upland Game Committee
27
Increase turkey stamp fee to $10.00
Yes Fee increase on consumptive users to fund wildlife management. Consistent with GLWA’s position on Q12–17. Yes.
Great Lakes Committee
28
Allow salmon/trout cleaning and fish waste disposal from boats ½ mile+ offshore on Lakes Michigan & Superior
— The ecological impact of offshore fish waste is minimal at the described distances. This is largely a practical fishing regulation. No strong position.
Warm Water Committee
29
Reduce panfish bag limit from 25 to 10 on Fox Lake
Yes Reducing bag limits protects fish populations from overharvest. GLWA supports more conservative bag limits. Yes.
30
Extend fish refuge on Peshtigo River (to first train bridge below dam), March 1–May 31
Yes Expanding spawning protection on the Peshtigo River protects a critical period for fish reproduction. Yes — exactly the kind of protective measure GLWA supports.
31
Create fish refuge on lower Menominee River (Hattie St. dam to railroad bridge), March 1–first Saturday in May
Yes Protecting spawning walleye from snagging and overharvest at a documented pressure point. Yes.
32
Remove 26-inch size limit on northern pike in Lake Emily (Portage County)
— The biologists’ rationale here is that removing the size limit reduces an overabundant small-pike population, improving size structure. This is a legitimate fisheries management tool. No strong position either way.
33
Allow underwater spearfishing for catfish (May 4–Oct. 15)
No This is a new and expanding form of take being introduced to increase “hunter and angler” recruitment. The ecological impact of underwater spearfishing on catfish populations warrants caution. No.
34
Reduce panfish limit from 25 to 10 on Long Lake, Waushara County
Yes Same rationale as Q29. Conservative bag limits protect fragile lake ecosystems. Yes.
Environmental Committee
35
DNR coordinate with agencies on painting wind turbine blades to reduce bird collisions by ~70%
Yes This is a genuine bird mortality mitigation measure with strong scientific support — a 2020 study showed up to 70% reduction by painting one blade black. Wind energy and bird protection are not mutually exclusive. Yes, strongly.
36
Prohibit industrial food waste digestate from farm co-digesters from being spread on farmland (protect water, fish, wildlife, public health)
Yes Farm co-digesters processing slaughterhouse waste, food packaging, and industrial byproducts introduce heavy metals, microplastics, PFAS, and antibiotic-resistant pathogens into soil and waterways. This is exactly the kind of environmental protection GLWA supports. Yes, strongly.
Outdoor Heritage and Education Committee
37
Reauthorize Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for 10 years / $1 billion
Yes The Knowles-Nelson 
      class="badge yes">Yes</span>
          <span class="q-rationale">This is the most transformative funding question on the ballot. Broad-based public funding for wildlife conservation — not dependent on hunting license sales — is exactly what GLWA supports. The Missouri model works. Yes, strongly.</span>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="question">
    <div class="question-header">
      <div class="q-num">20</div>
      <div class="q-body">
        <div class="q-title">Use general tax revenue to reimburse ~$20M in free/reduced license fees</div>
        <div class="q-vote-row">
          <span class="badge yes">Yes</span>
          <span class="q-rationale">The current system of subsidizing license fees through program cuts is backwards. Making the general fund cover fee subsidies frees up wildlife management dollars. Yes.</span>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="question">
    <div class="question-header">
      <div class="q-num">21</div>
      <div class="q-body">
        <div class="q-title">Access fee for all users of public lands (like a state park sticker)</div>
        <div class="q-vote-row">
          <span class="badge yes">Yes</span>
          <span class="q-rationale">Non-consumptive users — hikers, wildlife watchers, photographers — currently pay nothing toward habitat management on public lands. An equitable access fee is good public trust doctrine. Yes.</span>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="question">
    <div class="question-header">
      <div class="q-num">22</div>
      <div class="q-body">
        <div class="q-title">Register non-motorized watercraft (canoes, kayaks, SUPs) with fees for conservation</div>
        <div class="q-vote-row">
          <span class="badge yes">Yes</span>
          <span class="q-rationale">Paddlers use and benefit from clean waterways. A modest registration fee that funds water quality and fisheries management is reasonable. Yes.</span>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <!-- ═══════════════════════════════════════ -->
  <div class="section-header">2026 Wisconsin Conservation Congress Advisory Questions</div>
  <div class="subsection">Legislative Committee</div>
  <div class="question">
    <div class="question-header">
      <div class="q-num">23</div>
      <div class="q-body">
        <div class="q-title">0.125% dedicated sales tax for fish &amp; wildlife conservation (permanent funding)</div>
        <div class="q-vote-row">
          <span class="badge yes">Yes</span>
          <span class="q-rationale">Same as Q19 — this is the question GLWA most strongly supports. Broad-based, non-license-dependent, permanent conservation funding. Missouri has proven it works. Yes.</span>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="question">
    <div class="question-header">
      <div class="q-num">24</div>
      <div class="q-body">
        <div class="q-title">Designate Hine's Emerald Dragonfly as state insect; redesignate honeybee as state agricultural insect</div>
        <div class="q-vote-row">
          <span class="badge yes">Yes</span>
          <span class="q-rationale">The Hine's Emerald Dragonfly is the only federally endangered dragonfly in the U.S., with its most significant population in Door County, Wisconsin. Designating it as state insect raises its profile, promotes endangered species awareness, and is ecologically appropriate. Yes.</span>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="subsection">Fur Harvest Committee</div>
  <div class="question">
    <div class="question-header">
      <div class="q-num">25</div>
      <div class="q-body">
        <div class="q-title">Change muskrat/mink season opener to 9:00 AM</div>
        <div class="q-vote-row">
          <span class="badge no">No</span>
          <span class="q-rationale">This is a trapping administrative question. GLWA opposes expanding trapping convenience with no conservation basis. No position on the administrative change itself, but the framing around youth recruitment into trap